Scientist's opinions on Global Warming...
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Received this one via e-mail, wish Colorado and the rest of us had more politicians like Kevin Lundberg, he seems to have a respectable common sense take on most positions unlike most politicians.
Quote:September 27, 2015
Poor will Pay Dearly For Global Warming Strategies
_______________________________________________________
In the past few days, largely due to two speeches, delivered to Congress and the UN, much attention has been given to the global warming debate. This debate usually contains a lot of political discourse and very few verifiable facts.
The speeches appeared to be based on several questionable assumptions. If one starts with faulty assumptions, the conclusions are always wrong.
The assumptions:
1. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is causing a dangerous increase to the warming trend that began around 1850.
2. Severely restricting the production of anthropogenic carbon dioxide can significantly slow that warming trend.
3. The poor will suffer more if the warming trend accelerates.
4. A warmer planet will make our world a much more hostile environment.
My observations:
1. First it is important to put anthropogenic carbon dioxide into proper perspective. Carbon dioxide is less than .04 % of the atmosphere (which leaves over 99.96% for nitrogen, oxygen, etc.). It is considered a greenhouse gas because it can help reflect energy back to the earth’s surface. Water vapor also creates this “greenhouse” effect. Water vapor (of which the global warming alarmists never seem to have a problem) varies in the atmosphere from .01% to over 4% (over 100 times the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide). Additionally, most sources of Carbon dioxide are not anthropogenic. Man-made carbon dioxide accounts for less than 4% of all carbon dioxide emitted in the atmosphere every year. The major sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide come from the breakdown of organic material in the oceans and on land. This means that eliminating all anthropogenic CO2 for a full year would amount to a change in the range of about a thousandth of a percent of the total composition of gases in the atmosphere - and that is assuming all human activity which creates carbon dioxide completely ceases!
Nearly twenty years ago the computer climate models predicted significant increases in global temperatures. Satellite temperature measurements of global temperatures since then show little or no temperature increases. The most generous observation I can give on the effect of man-made carbon dioxide is to say that the jury is still out. A more realistic description is to declare that the global warming alarmists are wrong.
2. So, what effect will you make by severely reducing your “carbon footprint”? Even if changing the carbon dioxide levels has any significant effect on global warming, the difference your changes would still be much less than negligible. What if the U.S. implemented all the proposed programs, regulations, and restrictions which we could imagine to reduce our “carbon footprint”? The probability of seeing any overall global reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide is still less than negligible and any possibility of actually changing global temperatures is even smaller. It will, however, certainly be a huge drain on our economic vitality and that will result in a devastating blow to those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder, for the cost of energy will skyrocket, the cost of food will increase. The overall cost of living will shove some people off the economic ladder, which leads to assumption number three.
3. A warming planet does not place the poor, and (in many parts of the world) desperately poor in jeopardy. But pursuing the goal of lowering our carbon footprint will be an extreme hardship on the poor. Cost effective energy sources, a growing economy all over the globe and modern agricultural practices have raised many people from a state of bare survival level poverty to the beginnings of a reasonable living standard. Even modest proposals to limit our “carbon footprint” will dramatically restrict economic vitality in this country and around the world. The result will be billions of people living with much less. This means less food, refrigeration, potable water, medicine, sewage systems, fewer educational opportunities, less ability to have access to what we consider bare essentials for life. This scenario of severely restricted resources translates into many of the desperately poor literally dying at a much earlier age, for far too many never living past their infancy. That is a cost which is immoral and totally unacceptable.
4. Finally, is a warmer planet better or worse? The climate is always changing and whatever we do we will never stop that cycle. But what about a positive look toward the future? Rather than shrinking back from the inevitable warming trend we have experienced for at least the last few centuries, let us take full advantage of the opportunities a warmer climate offers. Rising temperatures can yield many positive outcomes, including new arable land, greater growth of forests, and fewer battles with the cold weather of winters. I know some predict greater storms and greater weather swings but the evidence has not matched the rhetoric. For example, hurricane activity in the U.S. is at a 45 year low and more hurricanes made landfall in the US in first half of the 20th century than the second half of the 20th century, and even less in this century.
Rather than diverting our economic potential toward the reduction of a theoretical “carbon footprint,” we should be utilizing technological advances, our natural resources, and the creative energy of our people to enrich the lives of everyone with the blessings of liberty and prosperity. Our Creator has charged us to be responsible stewards of all that is in the world, but not at the expense of the powerless and poor, for attending to their needs is an even greater responsibility.
For Life and Liberty!
Kevin Lundberg
Colorado State Senator for District 15
Assistant Majority Leader